while polygamy was common practice back then, genesis does say "for this reason a man wll leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh." Just becuase somthing happened a bunch doesn't mean it was what god had in mind for people. And in the new testament, church elders and deacons (at least) were supposed to only have one wife.

however, the point you used is not valid. David also had a man killed so he could marry the guy's wife and yet he was called a man after god's own heart. God loves people despite thier shortcomings, you can't take people's actions and justify then just because they were deemed righteous on the whole.

Never is polygamy condemned as sinful, though. Not once. There is encouragement to have only one wife for leaders, but nowhere does it say, cursed are ye who marry more than one person, for you shall burn in the fiery pit of hell. or anything like that.

David was not in trouble with God for having many, MANY wives, he was in trouble because he MURDERED a man in order to clear the way to marry the poor fellow's wife. Solomon also had many wives. Nowhere at all does the bible imply that this was a bad thing in the slightest.

This implies to me, that according to those who established the faith, it is preferrable to allow people to be married to more than one person rather than allow them to fornicate without that sanction._________________A person's character is their destiny.

I am non-denominational at the moment, I think its stupid to pick one as most have some dogma they either take apart from scripture or blow out of proportion in importance. I was in a baptist church growing up, then a presbeterian church for a time until they broke off and became non-denominational. We were at an Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) for a few months in transition, and now my father is leading his own church with no declared denominational ties. He is where I get most of my religious ideas and studied at a conservative baptist seminary for part of his degree in psychology. That gives you a bit more insight into my point of view than my denomination (or lack thereof) does I think.

@ yarko:

It kind of makes sense to equate god with a drug, certainly that is what people use to replace him sometimes. But I am going more for the classic insider mentality of religions.

@ ms frisby:

that is a logical jump I am not willing to take. While it may not be wrong per se to have multiple wives, it is wrong to go after indulgence of the flesh (even in marriage) instead of god. That is, I am sure, part of the reason church leaders are supposed to only have one wife._________________Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. -- Frederick Douglass

the feeling is the same creepy that bums on the street invoke. And since homosexulaity goes against nature, why shouldn't people who practice it be creepy?

As a volunteer working with homeless people I take exception to that. Many of them have serious psychological problems, and many are quite strange, and some are pretty dangerous, but I have yet to encounter any one of them I would consider 'creepy'. Because it's funny, but most of those that are strange are not dangerous, and most of those that are dangerous aren't that strange at all, just nasty. There is no relation between strangeness and danger, as much as we would like there to be one, for it would mean that we could trust the people we deem 'normal'.

I've been thinking if I consider anyone creepy. The only person that comes to mind is Ted Haggard, the way he acts in 'Jesus Camp'.

However I do recognize that if one would agree to his worldview he would seem a lot less creepy. And knowing how much that whole act is actually based on his own life, well, he's more sad than creepy really.

No, only in the movies does the idea 'creepy' make sense. In real life being strange and being dangerous are not very much connected.

thanks MF, i was asking cause sometimes specific dogmas believe things that arent in the bible. but your right, that did help me to understand where your beliefs are coming from._________________--Christianity with a touch of logic

people dont doubt who god has revealed himself as in scriptures. They argue about where to go from there._________________Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. -- Frederick Douglass

EDIT: love your sig by the way. Dr Suess FTW._________________Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. -- Frederick Douglass

Your new sig, Mellowfish. Your new sig. You are a fool._________________Once, at a local NOW meeting where I was the only male among about a dozen women, a feminism trivia contest was held. I came in third.

All of them? The Koran, the Talmud, the Baghavad Gita, the Analects, the Veda and all the other holy written books? As well as all translations of the Bible?_________________A person's character is their destiny.

yeah, so why did god see fit to include these specific letters in a book that he *knew* would last for thousands of years??!! Unless perhaps they were applicable to all mankind instead of just the contemporary audiences? I love how **Christians** want to later the bible to make it more appealing to the masses.

God himself did not choose the books to be in the bible, Catholic Priests and Bishops over a few centyuries determined what would be fit to be in the bible.

The Catholic church has an archive in the Vatican of ancient scripture that THEY have been determined to not be fit for the general public. Few people actually get to see these or get permission to read them.

Clarification: The judeo-christian bible as interpreted and read with the power of the holy spirit. No specific version, just a heart that is seeking god's will._________________Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. -- Frederick Douglass

Last edited by MellowFish on Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:42 am; edited 1 time in total

God himself did not choose the books to be in the bible, Catholic Priests and Bishops over a few centyuries determined what would be fit to be in the bible.

The Catholic church has an archive in the Vatican of ancient scripture that THEY have been determined to not be fit for the general public. Few people actually get to see these or get permission to read them.

Thanks but I've read stuff like that already. God guided the process of selecting texts for inclusion so that his message would come through as clear as possible._________________Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. -- Frederick Douglass

God himself did not choose the books to be in the bible, Catholic Priests and Bishops over a few centyuries determined what would be fit to be in the bible.

The Catholic church has an archive in the Vatican of ancient scripture that THEY have been determined to not be fit for the general public. Few people actually get to see these or get permission to read them.

Thanks but I've read stuff like that already. God guided the process of selecting texts for inclusion so that his message would come through as clear as possible.

I think Jesus made himself quite clear in this statement:

Matthew 22:34-40 (NRSV) wrote:

34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together,
35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.
36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
37 He said to him, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’
38 This is the greatest and first commandment.
39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”